Commonly known as “date rape”, the sexual assault generally occurs while the victim is incapacitated due to unknowingly imbibing chemical substances (e.g., drugs) surreptitiously placed in the victim's beverage by an assailant. Some common drugs associated with date rape are, e.g., Rohypnol, Ketamine, GHB (Gamma-Hydroxybutyrate), GBL (Gamma Butyrolactone), and 1,4-butanediol. Once ingested, the chemicals may act rapidly in the human body, often within 20 minutes, causing physical and psychological symptoms such as disinhibition, muscle relaxation, passivity, and loss of will to resist an assailant.
There are known techniques for detecting when a victim has ingested such drugs. For example, one example technique appears to describe a system for simultaneous analysis of GHB and its precursors in urine using liquid chromatography-tandem mass spectrometry. Though this and similar techniques may be effective, an example disadvantage is that they are not practical for non-professionals, and they require expensive equipment. Another example disadvantage is the reactive nature of the test, meaning the system is testing the urine, thus the drugs have already been ingested and the victim may have already been assaulted before testing is even contemplated.
Other testing devices may provide a more immediate and proactive approach through early detection. For example, some testing devices appear to disclose a test apparatus utilized by the user at the site and time of beverage consumption. A portion of the beverage apparently must first be captured by the user and drawn into an analysis chamber where the beverage is subjected to a chemical reagent composition, where the results of a color assay are viewable. That is, a color change may indicate a drug has been placed in the beverage.
Other testing devices may use the proactive techniques, but also provide discretion when testing a beverage for contamination. For example, an example testing device appears to show a testing material that a user may utilize to test the beverage. The testing material appears to be part of an entirely separate component which itself apparently must then be connected to a beverage container.
A more discrete testing apparatus may be used. Hiding the test strips allows the user to test the beverage without embarrassment by onlookers. For example, discrete testing devices may describe camouflaging and/or hiding individual drug testing strips in such things as a cocktail napkin, a beverage coaster, a placemat, a menu, a match book, a drink carrier (e.g., used to carry multiple drinks at once), a flyer, a coupon, and even a business card. As another example, the testing apparatus may be camouflaged as a drinking straw. The disguised drinking straw appears only to function as a test device and not as an actual straw. Yet another example may include a separate floating device in a beverage where the testing material is located. To test the beverage, the user apparently must first remove a sample of the beverage and place it on the test portion of the device.
However, the above (and other example devices) may suffer from numerous example and non-limiting disadvantages. For example, regardless of how quick a test result is determined, or how discreetly a testing apparatus may be hidden, the responsibility to carry the testing apparatus on oneself may be burdensome and may rest solely on the user. Moreover, even if a beverage has been tested at time T1, there is no assurance that the beverage subsequently has not been contaminated at time T2. Thus, there may be an additional requirement for the user to continuously test and re-test the beverage and to have the user bring enough testing material to do so. Testing and re-testing the beverage may not only be a hassle, but remembering to do so may become more difficult as time progresses (e.g., due to increased alcohol consumption). Additionally, as more alcohol is consumed, a user may be less able to distinguish between the normal effect of an alcoholic beverage and the effect of a contaminated alcoholic beverage.